Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament), 10 February 2021
466 contributions from 31 members. The official report.
Statement by the Llywydd
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Good afternoon. Welcome to this Plenary meeting. Before we begin, I want to set out a few points. A Plenary meeting held by video-conference, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Welsh Parliament, constitutes Senedd proceedings for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some of the provisions of Standing Order 34 will apply for today's meeting, and these are noted on your agenda. I would remind Members of Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings, and these, of course, apply to this meeting.
1. Debate: Stage 3 of the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The first item on our agenda this afternoon is the Stage 3 debate on the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill.
Group 1: Repossession grounds (Amendments 32, 33, 46, 51, 52)
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
We will move to group 1, and that relates to repossession grounds. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 32, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Diolch, Llywydd. It's not a secret that we believe that there should be a ban on no-fault evictions, and the amendments that we've tabled today reflect this position. Our amendments in this group are based on the Scottish model, which bans no-fault evictions but does allow evictions in a limited number of circumstances. The reason for using the Scottish approach is not because we think that that approach is perfect, although it is considerably better than the approach proposed today, but it's because if we went for a complete ban, considering what's been said at previous stages, I suspect the Minister would argue that this would risk being incompatible with human rights laws. Personally, I think evicting and making people homeless for no reason would itself be a violation of human rights, but, unfortunately, people who are homeless lack the financial resources to establish lobby groups for all parties and also to take the Government to court. So, instead, we have lifted the Scottish model, which, of course, has been in law for a number of years and therefore it is reasonable for us all to assume that that would be compatible with human rights law. It would significantly strengthen the rights of tenants and bring us far closer to ending no-fault evictions. At Stage 2, the Minister explained that the grounds may be too narrow and prevent a landlord from reclaiming their property if they fell outside these grounds. So, that is why the amendment gives the Minister the power to modify the grounds.
Speaking more generally, I want to outline my group's approach to the legislation. That is, we do not believe the Government has got the balance right between the rights of tenants, often the poorer party, and landlords, which is the group with the historic lobbying power. There hasn't been enough movement from the Government on this, at least not movement in the direction we would like to see. There was, of course, a pledge made by the First Minister for a total ban on no-fault evictions, but this has been watered down to merely increase the notice period required from two to six months. That's considerable movement towards the position of landlords and is, I'm afraid, a reflection of the power imbalance in terms of different groups and their access to understanding these issues and being able to lobby for change. It remains our understanding that the UK Government intends to ban no-fault evictions in England, but they've postponed that legislation due to the pandemic. Nonetheless, it means that passing this legislation today would leave Wales as the outlier. The rights of tenants in Wales would be the weakest, and that is a position my group cannot support.
In any other circumstances, we might at least consider this slight movement to be worth while, but the pandemic, to all intents and purposes, means that we are discussing here what the legal regime will be post pandemic. So, whatever happens this afternoon won't in practice impinge on tenants' rights at the moment, in the short term. However, in the longer run, passing this Bill would be damaging, as it would inevitably delay the changes we would want to see implemented. As such, without significant movement from the Government today, we will be voting against the Bill and seeking to introduce a far stronger Bill, should we be successful in forming the next Government. That would be a fairer approach for all, setting out our clear intention to bring forward our own legislation rather than accepting what is being offered here. I look forward to the debate. Diolch yn fawr.
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Our Conservative amendments 51 and 52 introduce some mandatory grounds for repossession. I'm supportive of the overarching aim of the Bill to increase security of tenure for renters, as are most of us across the Chamber. However, it's worth acknowledging the concerns of many landlords and letting agents about the impact the Bill may have on their ability to regain possession of their property should they need to as a last resort. These concerns have been exacerbated given the bottleneck that courts in Wales are now experiencing, with research from National Residential Landlords Association Wales showing that it now takes private landlords an average of 22.6 weeks from making a claim in the courts for a property to be repossessed to it actually happening. This causes disruption and concern for landlords, increases the cost of action, and prevents homes from being available to people who need them. As such, the Association of Residential Letting Agents have called for additional mandatory grounds to be included in the Bill to ensure that it works and achieves a balanced approach. Amendment 51 therefore includes grounds such as if a landlord intends to sell the property or move into the property as suggested by ARLA. While the Minister did not agree with this in Stage 2, it is important to recognise that people's circumstances change. If a landlord is facing homelessness or financial difficulties, then they may need to move into their property or to sell it, and the Bill should recognise such exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 51 also includes grounds for anti-social behaviour and domestic abuse. I'd be interested to know how the Minister would respond to written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru, which states that,
'careful monitoring would need to be established to glean the experience of both tenants and landlords'
to ensure that there are no unintended consequences that undermine the ability of landlords to respond to such serious issues.
Amendment 52, meanwhile, enables a mortgage lender to regain possession of a property. Whilst supporting the intentions of the Bill, UK Finance note concerns that the effect of the increased credit risk could have a dampening effect on the private rented sector in Wales, which would be counter to the Welsh Government's desire to see a vibrant, viable, high-quality and growing PRS for those who choose or need it. We are all aware of the issues in the supply of homes in Wales, and it is important that the Bill does not have any unintended consequences on the availability of homes. Does the Minister have any plans to review the impact of the Bill on housing supply in Wales, as part of the post-implementation review? Diolch.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The Minister, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Diolch, Llywydd. As Delyth has said, her amendments 32 and 33 combined would remove the landlord's ability to serve notice under section 173 in relation to the vast majority of occupation contracts, placing it instead with grounds for possession similar but not the same as the approach taken in Scotland. These new grounds set out in a new Schedule 8ZA are either mandatory or discretionary and require a landlord to serve a minimum 12 months' notice before a possession claim can be made. However, the ability for a landlord to serve a section 173 notice would be retained only for occupation contracts set out in Schedule 8A, which provide a minimum of two months' notice, so it would in fact be the least protection in the United Kingdom, and not the most, as she asserted.
I am not confident that the grounds listed in this new Schedule 8ZA would necessarily cover all the reasons why a landlord may wish to seek possession. Grounds-based legislation such as this does require detailed consideration and consultation to ensure the grounds provided for cover all the eventualities that may arise. Without this work being undertaken, landlords may indeed find they are unable to ever gain possession of their property.
I also don't think the balance between mandatory and discretionary grounds are right, either—for example, a mandatory ground for mortgagee possession, but a discretionary ground for the return of a property to a family home. In addition to my concerns around these new grounds, my real difficulty with Delyth's amendments is the requirement for a landlord to provide a minimum 12 months' notice. Renting Homes has always sought to strike the right balance between a contract holder having sufficient security of tenure and a landlord being able to obtain possession of their property. I do not think this could be claimed if we were to dump this requirement for a 12 months' notice period before possession proceedings could commence. For these reasons, I cannot support amendments 32 and 33.
Turning to Laura's amendments 46 and 51, I have very serious concerns about how these impact upon a contract holder's security of tenure. The amendments set out a number of mandatory grounds and enable a landlord to seek possession with just a maximum of two months' notice. I do not support the introduction of new mandatory grounds within a Bill aimed at increasing security of tenure. The use of mandatory grounds was considered very carefully by the Law Commission in preparing Renting Homes, and they remain in only a very small number of cases. The basis of this Bill is to provide a minimum six months' notice to a contract holder who has done nothing wrong during their occupation. I understand that a landlord may have good reasons to want to sell the property or live in it themselves, but these are not the fault of the contract holder and certainly should not take priority over their ability to find another suitable home. Two months' notice in these circumstances would simply maintain the current system and the devastating impact it has on families subject to such short notices.
Similarly, with regard to amendment 52, a contract holder is not at fault should a mortgagee wish to seek possession, and I cannot accept that a mandatory ground with just two months' notice is necessary here, either. As I say, this Bill is seeking to extend the period a contract holder will have to find a suitable home, not reduce it, and for these reasons, Llywydd, I cannot support these amendments. Diolch.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Diolch, Llywydd. I thank Members for taking part in the debate. I think this is the first time that Laura and I have responded to legislation together since she has come to this role, so I welcome her to that. I think that the short debate that we've just had does go to show that there still is this imbalance in terms of influence between tenants and landlords. I'd certainly agree with what the Minister was saying about the Conservative amendments. I still do think that we need to go further in Wales and, for that reason, we will be pushing our amendments in this group to a vote, and I hope that Members will consider what was said. Diolch yn fawr.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 32 be agree. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection, and we will therefore suspend proceedings temporarily to prepare for our first vote. We will do this only once during this Stage 3 debate. So, we will suspend proceedings. Thank you.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
So, that brings us to our first vote, and we will proceed to a vote on amendment 32 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, eight abstentions and 32 against, therefore amendment 32 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 33, Delyth Jewell, is that moved?
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Yes.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Yes. Thumbs up means it is moved. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see that there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 33 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed.
Group 2: Notice period (Amendments 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Our next group is group 2, which relates to notice periods. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 34. I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Diolch, Llywydd. The amendments in this group are also reflective of our position of wanting to end no-fault evictions. We have tabled these in the spirit of seeking to find compromise with the Government, as we would consider supporting the Bill if it extended the no-fault period. So, these amendments extend the period of notice that must be given for a no-fault eviction, and we've provided several options here for Members to consider, which is why we have this series of votes.
So, amendments 34 and 20 extend that period to a year; amendments 35 and 21 extend the period to two years; amendments 36 and 22 extend that period to three years; amendments 37 and 23 extend the period to four years; amendments 38 and 24 extend the period to five years; and, finally, amendments 39 and 25 extend the period to 10 years. So, I want to know what people think is an acceptable notice period to give to tenants when they are not at fault.
Six months, in my view, is not enough notice for people in many circumstances. I take the point that the Minister's made in previous stages that, in effect, it gives a year's security. I still think that this doesn't take into account some of the most complex situations that can face tenants, for example: families with children who attend a local school and need to stay living in the area because moving schools is disruptive; families containing people who don't deal that well with changes in routine, such as people on the autistic spectrum; people who have caring responsibilities for family living nearby; or perhaps people who don't drive but have work commitments where moving home could jeopardise that employment, because the person needs to have access to decent public transport. These are people for whom being evicted will be especially stressful and disruptive. Why should children face the disruption of frequently moving schools because we have failed to provide long-term secure housing? Why should people face massive disruption through no fault of their own? A six-month notice period is simply not enough time for many families in rural or in Valleys communities to find alternative accommodation within the same area. That's something that, often, those who live in large cities with a vibrant rental market don't consider. It's also not enough time for people with disabilities to find suitable alternative accommodation where they need adaptations to the home.
On that basis, I believe the Government's attempted compromise with the landlord lobbyists is incompatible with equalities laws and potentially with the rights of the child. I therefore tabled this series of amendments to correct this, starting with the minimum acceptable period that my group would consider in order to support the legislation. I do hope Members will reflect on the equalities implications of what's been said, and I look forward to the debate. Diolch.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The Minister to contribute to the debate—Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Diolch, Llywydd. As Delyth has said, amendments 34 to 39 set out a range of longer alternative minimum notice periods that a landlord must give to end a periodic standard contract under section 173 of the 2016 Act. Amendments 40 to 45 do the same in relation to notices issued under a landlord's break clause in fixed-term standard contracts. The Bill, of course, is already increasing notice periods in both these instances from two to six months. The increased notice period represents a balance between the interests of landlords and contract holders, and it is a position previously supported by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee in its Stage 1 report on the Bill.
Delyth, I understand entirely, wants to achieve a situation in which the private rented sector gives the sort of security of tenure that people in social housing would ideally get, but I would argue that there will be unintended consequences from some of these amendments, which we would need to take into account were we to try and extend the notice periods in this way, not least that people would simply withdraw from the private rented sector altogether if they had to wait several years in order to get a house back in circumstances where they may need it for perfectly good reasons. So, this is always about the balance between the need of the landlord to retain their property for their own use or for selling on or for whatever, and for the tenant to get a security of tenure that does allow them, as Delyth says and we have a lot of sympathy with that, to stay in the area where their children are at school and where they are established as a family. Absolutely, we want to get the balance right and we believe that what we are setting out in the Bill does get that balance right and will not have any unintended consequences.
Furthermore, and it is a point I've made before but it's worth making again: under the Bill as drafted, tenants in Wales will have a greater security of tenure in relation to no-fault notice than anywhere else in the UK. In Scotland, for example, a tenant does not have to be at fault to receive only 28 days' notice in the first six months of a tenancy and less than three months' notice after that. The alternative minimum notice periods contained in these amendments would upset the balance between the rights of the contract holder and their landlord, and may well have unintended consequences in the private rented sector. As I indicated to the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee when these same amendments were brought forward at Stage 2, I do not think these increases could be justified, and for these reasons, Llywydd, while I appreciate that they are well intentioned, I cannot support amendments 34 to 45.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Delyth Jewell to respond.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Diolch, Llywydd. I do realise that the Minister has sympathy with the motivation behind these amendments. I thank her for the response. In politics, I think that obviously we always need to find a balance—the art of what is possible. I still feel that the balance here needs to be tipped more in favour of the people with the kind of either vulnerabilities or very precarious situations that are all too common, which I've noted. For those reasons, although I do appreciate what the Minister says, we will be pushing these amendments to the vote, and I thank her for the response. I hope that Members will consider what we've said when it comes to voting. Diolch.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
That brings us to the vote. And if amendment 34 is agreed, amendments 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 will fall. The question, therefore, is that amendment 34 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see that there are objections, and we will therefore move to a vote on amendment 34. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 34 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 35, Delyth Jewell, is that moved?
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
[Inaudible.]
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
It is. Perhaps we should confirm orally too, in case a thumbs up isn't recorded on the official Record. Is it moved, Delyth Jewell?
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Yes, formally.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Thank you. So, amendment 35, the question is that amendment 35 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We'll move to a vote on amendment 35. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 35 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 36, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
A vote, therefore—. Are there any objections to amendment 36? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will move to a vote on amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 36 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 37, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 37? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 37 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 37 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 38, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 38? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 38 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 39, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 39? [Objection.] Yes, there are. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 39 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 39 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 40, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 40? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 40 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions and 41 against. Therefore, amendment 40 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 41, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move, please.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 41? [Objection.] There are. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 41. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 41 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 42, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move, please.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 42? [Objection.] Yes, there are. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 42 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 43, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move, please.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Any objections to amendment 43? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We'll move to a vote on amendment 43. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 43 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 44, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move, please.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Any objections to amendment 44? [Objection.] Yes, there are. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 44 in the name of Delyth Jewell. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 44 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 45, Delyth Jewell.
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move, please.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Any objections to amendment 45? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 45. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed.
Group 3: Standard and fixed term contracts which can be terminated with 2 months notice (Amendments 9, 53, 54)
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Which brings us to group 3. This relates to standard and fixed-term contracts that can be terminated with two months' notice. The lead amendment is amendment 9. I call on Julie James to move the amendment and speak to the other amendments in the group.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
I move amendment 9 in my name. Amendment 9 further clarifies when a higher education institution is able to provide a two-month notice under either section 173 or, potentially, a landlord’s break clause. A higher education institution will only be allowed to provide two months’ notice to a contract holder who is provided with accommodation in order to be able to undertake a course of study. This is irrespective of whether the accommodation has also been provided for another purpose. I urge Members to support this amendment.
Regarding amendment 53 tabled by Laura Anne Jones, as I indicated when the same amendment was tabled at Stage 2, I do recognise the issue the amendment aims to address. Since the Stage 2 committee meeting, my officials have met with representatives of the three armed forces families federations and with the Ministry of Defence. The core concern is that the MOD provides only three months’ notice to terminate occupation of armed forces accommodation. Therefore, if a property owned by a member of the armed forces has been rented privately, the general requirement under the Bill to give six months’ notice could cause difficulties. However, it is clear from the discussions that have taken place that there are complexities that need to be further examined to ensure any provision we make to address this problem is sound. We also need to consider the position of someone whose landlord joins the armed forces after the start date of their contract, and could potentially be subject to a change in their security of tenure as a result. Therefore, I do not support amending the Bill now before these complexities are fully understood. As it stands, we already have regulation-making powers to provide for such an exemption if it proves to be appropriate and necessary.
Amendment 54, also tabled by Laura Anne, relates to the renting out of properties that are normally occupied by ministers of religion. Such private renting is, I understand, quite common for periods when such properties are not needed to house a minister of religion. I indicated during Stage 1 that I did not see a case for someone to be given only two months’ notice in such circumstances—a view with which the committee was in agreement. I remain to be convinced that this is necessary, and therefore do not support this amendment. However, should it at some point be decided that it is necessary, there is already a regulation-making power that could be used for such an exemption.
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Minister, I appreciate your comments on our amendments. Amendments 53 and 54 seek to provide an exemption to the Bill for members of the armed forces, as you explained, who have been given notice to leave service accommodation, as well as properties occupied by ministers of religion. Both amendments respond to concerns raised about the unintended consequences of the Bill. The National Residential Landlords Association Wales have highlighted that members of the armed forces who have been given notice to leave their service accommodation may face increased risk of homelessness or other housing difficulties due to the difference in notice periods provided for within this Bill compared to that used by the MOD.
I'm grateful to Cytûn for their support in helping us to draft amendment 54. They have also raised concerns about the impact of the Bill on faith communities. This includes potentially being able to rotate clergy on an annual basis between ministry roles and problems with a lengthy notice period before securing possession of a parsonage if a minister is removed due to a serious disciplinary issue. Minister, I appreciate that you've previously stated that you've been in discussions with stakeholders about both issues, as you outlined. Whilst I believe that our amendments will address the concerns that have been raised, I would appreciate if you could give me an update on the work that your officials have undertaken on this. When will you address these concerns, should you not be swayed by these amendments now?
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Was that the end of your contribution?
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Yes.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Sorry—my mistake. I wasn't sure whether you'd lost the sound or whether that was the end of the contribution. That's great. Thank you. There are no other speakers, so I'll call Julie James to respond to the debate, if she wishes to.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Briefly, just to ask Members to support amendment 9, for the additional clarity it brings. I do ask Members to reject amendments 53 and 54 on the basis that I've already set out. We are in discussion with both groups of stakeholders and we would much rather use the regulation powers already available to us to tackle these concerns once the full extent of the issues has been properly explored.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 9 in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 9 is agreed.
Group 4: Miscellaneous amendments to the 2016 Act (Amendments 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 56, 21, 25, 26, 27)
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
We will now move to group 4, miscellaneous amendments to the 2016 Act. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 10, and I call on Julie James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
I move the amendments in my name. The purpose of amendments 10, 16, 17 and 19 is to remove redundant references to the Displaced Persons (Temporary Protection) Regulations 2005, which have now been revoked.
Amendment 18 will remove the examples in section 33 of the 2016 Act of editorial changes that may be made to fundamental and supplementary terms set out in a written statement. On reflection, these examples may be unhelpful and are not considered necessary. As Members will appreciate, it is essential that the terms set out in written statements reflect the provisions included in the Act and any regulations made under it, as appropriate. But where there may be some opportunity to improve in this area and enhance the experience of model written statements for users, I do not want to take—for users, I want to take it. Forgive me; I mangled that up a bit. I'll say that again. Where there may be some opportunity to improve in this area and enhance the experience of model written statements for users, I do want to take that opportunity.
Amendment 20 further clarifies the circumstances where a community landlord may provide a standard contract, instead of a secure contract, to a contract holder undertaking study. This exemption only applies where the accommodation is provided solely for the purposes of the contract holder attending a designated course at an educational establishment. Where the contract holder has additional entitlement to the property outside of the need for accommodation to study, the community landlord is required to provide a secure contract, where the additional entitlement of the contract holder would otherwise qualify them for a contract of that kind. The accommodation covered under this provision is not connected to, and is for a different purpose than, that provided by a higher education institution.
Amendments 21 and 25 through to 27 amend section 256(2) of the 2016 Act. This section currently permits regulations made under the 2016 Act to make consequential amendments to enactments, and modifications, repeals and revocations of enactments. This amendment will expand that power so that it applies to any provision of the 2016 Act, as well as to other enactments. Such an amendment has been identified as necessary as a result of the considerations relating to the Jarvis v. Evans judgment. This amendment will facilitate the making of accessible and clear legislation by ensuring that required consequential amendments can be made to the 2016 Act and can be made in the most appropriate place within the 2016 Act.
Amendment 56 would remove accommodation occupied by ministers of religion entirely from the Renting Homes regime. The provisions of this amending legislation currently provide greater security of tenure to ministers of religion who often occupy their accommodation through a basic licence. We have received representations from Cytûn, representatives of churches in Wales, who have expressed concern that such an approach would have an impact upon the way that churches currently operate. Whilst my officials are in contact with Cytûn on this matter, I am conscious that the views of all affected parties have not yet been sought. The Welsh Government will keep this matter under review and look to use the available subordinate legislation powers to address any issue, if required. Therefore, I'm afraid I cannot support amendment 56.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 10. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, one against. Therefore amendment 10 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Laura Jones, amendment 53. Is it being moved? Formally? Amendment 53 in your name. Are you moving it formally?
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Is there any objection?
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Is there an objection to amendment 53? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 53.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, amendment 53 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 54, Laura Jones. Is that being moved? It's in your name.
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Thank you. The question is whether there is any objection to amendment 54. [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 54.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 36 against, and therefore the amendment is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Delyth Jewell, amendment 46 is next. Is it moved?
Delyth Jewell (Plaid Cymru, South Wales East)
Move, please.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
If amendment 46 is agreed, amendment 1 falls. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see that there is an objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 46. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, two abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 46 is not agreed.
Group 5: Restrictions on giving notice (Amendments 1, 2,3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 8)
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
We now move to group 5, which relates to restrictions on giving notice. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 1. I call on Julie James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Minister, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Diolch, Llywydd. I move Government amendments 1, 23, 29 and 30, which clarify when a notice under section 173 can be served upon a contract holder by re-titling section 175 so that the heading matches the section itself. This will remove the potential for ambiguity regarding a situation where the occupation contract doesn’t permit the contract holder to start occupying the property immediately. This can often be the case with student lets where the contract permits the contract holder to start occupying from a date in the future. In these and similar circumstances, a landlord cannot serve a section 173 notice during the period that starts with the day the contract is made and ending six months after the occupation date, and the amendment ensures that the heading of section 175 reflects that fact.
Amendments 2, 24 and 31 clarify when a landlord’s break clause notice can be issued to a contract holder by re-titling section 196 so that the heading matches the text of the section. It will remain the case that a landlord is prevented from serving a break clause under a fixed-term contract until 18 months after the contract has elapsed, starting with the occupation date of the contract. This restriction will apply regardless of when the fixed-term contract was entered into.
Amendments 3, 4, 8 and 15 remove references to the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 within this Bill. Such action is necessary, following detailed consideration of the Jarvis v Evans Court of Appeal judgment in 2020, relating to the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. The judgment has proven to be quite complicated in its application, not only to the 2014 Act, but how this is expressed with the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. I have some concerns that any amendments brought forward at this stage to account for this judgment may not be accurate and would be difficult to correct. Therefore, I consider it prudent to remove these references to the 2014 Act so that the matter can be fully considered and provisions confidently brought forward.
Amendments 11, 12, 13 and 22 provide further clarity on serving a section 173 or 186 and a break clause notice by a landlord who has not provided a written statement to the contract holder. Amendments 11, 12 and 13 remove any potential uncertainty around the ability of a landlord to issue a notice where a written statement has not been provided to the contract holder. Where a written statement has not been provided by the landlord, regardless of whether this is during the 14-day period provided for under sections 31(1) and 31(2), the landlord will be prevented from serving a notice set out under schedule 2 until a written statement is provided.
Section 31(1) provides a period of 14 days for the landlord to provide a written statement to the contract holder, starting with the occupation date of the contract. Section 31(2) provides a period of 14 days, from the date of occupation or where the landlord becomes aware, for the landlord to provide a new written statement to the contract holder should the contract holder change during the life of the contract. A landlord who provides a written statement within this 14-day period is not subjected to further sanction. Amendment 13 clarifies that a landlord who has failed to comply with this requirement is prohibited from giving a notice under section 173 or 186 under a landlord’s break clause for a period of six months, starting with the day on which the landlord provided the written statement to the contract holder.
Amendment 14 provides clarification that a landlord is restricted from serving notice when they are in breach of the security requirements in relation to the occupation contract.
Amendment 28 deals with those existing tenancies and licences, which will convert to an occupation contract upon implementation of the Renting Homes Act. An existing landlord, upon implementation of the Act, will have a period of six months from the appointed day—the date of implementation—to provide the contract holder with a copy of the written statement. During this six-month period, the occupation contract is in force and applies to both landlord and contract holder equally. Amendment 28 clarifies that a landlord is not prevented from serving a notice under section 173, section 186, or a landlord’s break clause during this period, whether or not the written statement has been provided to the contract holder.
I therefore urge Members to support all the amendments in this group. Diolch, Llywydd.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Thank you. Before I call Laura Jones to speak, may I apologise to Laura Jones for not having called her in the previous group of amendments? That was my fault entirely and would have confused you. Sorry about that. So, if you wish to make any comments on amendments 53 and 54 from the previous group just to place them on the Record, please feel free to do so. And of course, speak to this group of amendments as well. My apologies, Laura.
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Thank you, Llywydd, I appreciate that. Okay, yes, we'll go back to group 4. Amendment 56 in my name is linked to our amendment 54, which we've just debated and voted on. It seeks to clarify the occupation status of the minister of religion and I am, again, grateful to Cytûn for their support.
In written evidence, Cytûn state that it is their view that ministers of religion who occupy parsonage properties do not fall within the scope of the Bill. For example, Church in Wales ministers do not pay any rent, licence fee or other payment to the representative body or to any other Church in Wales body. Cytûn therefore contend that the direct effect of the Act would alter the relationship between the Church and ministers from a relationship that is not an employment relationship to one that is an employment relationship. However, they also acknowledge that this is an unintended consequence of the Bill that would be addressed through this amendment. It is my hope that Members would support this.
Minister, I would also ask for some clarification about amendment 25, which gives the Welsh Ministers a number of additional powers over the 2016 Act. The purpose and effect table is not very clear on how you intend to use these potentially wide-ranging powers in the future. So, I would appreciate some clarity on this. Shall I go straight on to group 5, Llywydd?
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Yes, please. Carry on.
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Restrictions on giving notice. Minister, we will be abstaining on amendments 1 and 2, and their consequential amendments. This is not because I disagree with the intention of increasing security of tenure, but because I want to raise issues discussed by my colleague Mark Isherwood MS during Stage 2.
At Stage 2, we brought forward an amendment based on recommendations made by the NRLA to allow for a six-month section 173 notice to be served after four months, but to take effect at the end of the six-month fixed term. The NRLA, whilst not disrupting the Bill's intentions, have voiced concerns about the impact that this may have in markets where the preservation of an annual cycle, mainly the student sector, is essential for the smooth running of the rental sector. This was also supported by the leader of Ceredigion County Council, a Plaid Cymru councillor, in a recent letter received by the NRLA.
The Minister refused to accept this amendment, instead arguing that students would not be treated differently. This was not the intention of this amendment. Nor would this amendment have encroached on the Welsh Government's objective of a year's security of tenure and increased notice period. All it sought was to give the landlords extra flexibility to preserve the business cycle that is essential to the efficient running of the sector. Minister, how do you respond to the legitimate concerns of some within the housing sector about the impact that this provision will have on the student housing sector, in particular, and how can you alleviate these concerns?
Moving on to amendment 2, we put forward a compromise amendment at Stage 2, allowing for a six-month, 10-year tenant-only break, which was proposed by the NRLA. However, this was rejected by the Minister. This was based on concerns that some tenants want some flexibility so that they can respond to changes in their personal lives. As such, will the Minister provide confidence about how the Bill provides for tenants who require flexibility, while also increasing security of tenure?
Finally, we are abstaining on amendment 15, as it does not seem to fully resolve the judgment of the recent Jarvis v. Evans case. Indeed, it returns to the status quo, as outlined in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. As such, I wanted to ask whether this is a stop-gap amendment ahead of further changes, or whether you are satisfied that it responds to the recent judgment. Thank you.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Julie James to respond.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Diolch, Llywydd. Well, starting with that last point first, I think I made it clear in my submission that we were removing the references because of the complexity of the case in point. The complexity of that judgment requires further consideration. Therefore, we have removed all references to the 2014 Act as a result of that.
In terms of the other points, I understand the point that Laura Anne is making, but we don't accept that the landlords' business cycle is unduly interrupted by the provisions set out here. The amendments in the group make various changes to the restrictions on giving notice. We have worked very hard with all stakeholders—both tenants and landlords—to make sure that this is a reasonable compromise between them. I therefore ask Members to support all of the amendments in the group. Diolch.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection. We'll move to a vote on amendment 1. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, nine abstentions, and five against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 2, Julie James.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Is it being moved?
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We'll move to a vote on amendment 2 in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. In favour 35, nine abstentions, and four against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 3, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved, Llywydd.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 3. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, 11 abstentions, and two against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 4, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 4? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move a vote on amendment 4. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 11 abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 11, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved, Llywydd.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 11. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 11 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Julie James, amendment 12.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we will move to a vote on amendment 12. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 12 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 13, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 13. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, one against. Therefore, amendment 13 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 14, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved, Llywydd.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 14. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions, none against, therefore amendment 14 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 15, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 15? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 15. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 12 abstentions and one against, therefore amendment 15 is agreed.
Group 6: Withdrawal of notice (Amendments 47, 48, 49, 50, 55)
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The next group is group 6, and the amendments relate to withdrawal of notice. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 47, and I call on Laura Jones to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Laura Jones.
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Diolch, Llywydd. I speak to all amendments 47, 48, 49, 50 and 55 in my name, which require a landlord to explicitly give notice to the contract holder that a notice has been withdrawn. Section 8 allows landlords to withdraw a defective section 173 notice and reissue it in the correct form, with the proviso that the notice period begins from the date of reissuing. In written evidence to the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, Shelter Cymru argued that the provision under section 8, as drafted, is unclear. Shelter have also suggested that, whilst the implication will be that the new notice replaces the former notice, this leaves room for confusion. Shelter provides an example of when such confusion may occur: a contract holder might not understand which notice is the correct one or a landlord might seek to rely on either/or if one has a defect. This amendment assures that tenants are notified when a notice has been withdrawn, so both landlord and tenant are clear about their rights and obligations. As Shelter contend, if we want compliance, then clarification is needed. I hope Members will support our amendments, and I look forward to the debate.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The Minister to contribute to the debate. Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Diolch, Llywydd. I appreciate the intention behind these amendments is to clarify, through being more explicit, that the relevant notice is being withdrawn. We can see there is merit in making some adjustments to the provisions in the 2016 Act, but, unfortunately, we don't think these provisions work as they stand. Unfortunately, these weren't raised at Stage 2, where we would have welcomed an opportunity to work with you on the wording, but, unfortunately, that's not now possible.
However, I'm confident that we'll be able to prevent any potential confusion by making the requirements absolutely clear in supporting guidance, and I'm very grateful to you for drawing the matter to our attention. Further, I'm also mindful that we have a power in section 236(3) of the 2016 Act to prescribe the form of notices, and this could also be used, if necessary, to ensure there is no confusion about withdrawal notices. Therefore, I'm afraid the Government is not supporting these amendments, albeit I entirely understand the intention behind them. Diolch.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Laura Jones, do you wish to respond?
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
I appreciate those, and thank you for your kind comments earlier, Delyth. And thank you for contributing to that debate. But, without going over the debate again, there is—. We do still feel that these are necessary amendments, and I do hope that Members will support them. Thank you.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
So, the first amendment is amendment 47. Does any Member object to amendment 47? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 47. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, four abstentions, 36 against, therefore amendment 47 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 48.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Laura Jones, is it being moved?
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 48. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, four abstentions and 36 against, therefore amendment 48 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Forty-nine. Amendment 49, Laura Jones, is it being moved?
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is: is there any objection to amendment 49? [Objection.] Yes, there is. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 49. Open the vote. Close the vote. So, in favour nine, four abstentions and 36 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
We move now to amendment 50.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Laura Jones, is it being moved, amendment 50?
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 50. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, four abstentions, 36 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 16 is next.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Julie James, is it being moved?
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 16. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions and none against, therefore amendment 16 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 17, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 17? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 17. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions and none against, therefore amendment 17 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Laura Jones, amendment 51.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 51, is it being moved?
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 51 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 51. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, three abstentions, 36 against, therefore amendment 51 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Laura Jones, amendment 52.
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Move.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 52 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 52. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, two abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 52 is not agreed.
Group 7: Changes to permitted payments under the Renting Homes (Fees) Act (Wales) 2019 (Amendments 5, 6, 7)
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Group 7 is our next group of amendments. They relate to changes to permitted payments under the Renting Homes (Fees) Act (Wales) 2019. Amendment 5 is the lead amendment, and I call on Julie James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 5 amends Schedule 1 to the Renting Homes (Fees etc) (Wales) Act 2019 and permits payment for a further copy of a written statement of an occupation contract. Broadly, the purpose of the 2019 Act is to prohibit landlords and letting agents requiring payments from contract holders or tenants under a standard occupation contract, unless those payments are permitted under that Act. Those payments that are permitted are set out in Schedule 1 to the 2019 Act. Given that section 31(5) of the 2016 Act states that a landlord may charge a reasonable fee for providing a further written statement, this payment does need to be included in Schedule 1 to the 2019 Act.
Amendment 6 permits the payment of service charges to community landlords and supported accommodation providers in respect of standard occupation contracts, with retrospective effect from the date the 2019 Act came into force. Amendment 7 provides for early commencement of amendment 6 upon Royal Assent, which is considered an appropriate and practical step to reduce the period of retrospection.
As is the case with copies of written statements, the list of permitted payments included at Schedule 1 to the 2019 Act does not currently include service charges—that is, things such as grounds maintenance, the maintenance of common areas of blocks of flats and external window cleaning. The focus of the 2019 Act is on ensuring that contract holders are not subject to additional and/or unreasonable fees charged by letting agencies and private landlords. Most tenancies in the social housing sector will be secure contracts and therefore not subject to its provisions. However, introductory standard contracts, prohibited standard contracts and supported standard contracts issued by community landlords and supported accommodation providers would be subject to its provisions. As a result, service charges in relation to these types of social housing tenancy are prohibited by the 2019 Act. This effect is unintended. Service charges are a necessary element of social housing tenancies, especially in supported accommodation, where the cost of the services necessary to keep vulnerable people safe and suitably housed can be considerable. Amendment 6 rectifies this situation. It adds service charges levied by a community landlord or supported accommodation provider as a permitted payment under Schedule 1 to the 2019 Act, except for situations where a community landlord is undertaking commercial rental activity.
Pending the implementation of the system of occupation contracts to be introduced by the renting homes Act 2016, transitional provision regulations, which came into force in September 2019 at the same time as the 2019 Act, apply certain Parts of the 2019 Act to existing assured shorthold tenancies. Amendment 6 amends these regulations so that, during the transition period, service charges will be a permitted payment in relation to assured shorthold tenancies in otherwise the same circumstances as they will be made permissible in relation to standard occupation contracts.
The amendments to the transitional regulations retrospectively apply the inclusion of service charges as a permitted payment from the date the 2019 Act came into force, that is, 1 September 2019. The effect of this will be that the service charges levied by applicable landlords will be lawful from that date. Whilst we do not anticipate any adverse impact on tenants of this change, amendment 6 prohibits a landlord that has charged a service charge during that period from issuing a section 21 notice for a period of six months. For similar reasons, two savings provisions are included. The first means that any section 21 notice served before the amendment comes into force remains invalid. The second means that any repayment order made under section 22(1) of the 2019 Act is saved.
Amending the 2019 Act to permit service charges in relation to standard occupation contracts issued in the social housing sector is vital to ensuring that it remains economically viable for providers to make provision for specific groups of vulnerable people. This is especially true in the supported accommodation sector. Ensuring that the change applies retrospectively is critical to ensuring that social housing providers are not caused serious financial harm by having to pay back money previously collected, thus reducing their capacity to make future provision. For these reasons, I urge Members to support amendments 5, 6 and 7.
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Minister, I welcome these amendments, and in particular amendment 6. I understand that many in the social housing sector have made representations to you about the issue, and I'm pleased that a way forward has been found. Whilst I understand the action that the Government has taken, I do wonder about how the issue arose in the first place. In your explanatory notes, you acknowledge that the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Act 2019 has resulted in some unintended consequences. This is a theme that has arisen during the passage of the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill. I understand that we cannot foresee all issues that may arise through legislation, but respectfully I question whether ambiguities within the drafting of the Welsh legislation is creating these avoidable issues in the first place.
As you have outlined, RSLs are thought to have a total financial exposure of £3.5 million. This goes to emphasise how serious this so-called unintended consequence actually is. Most importantly, however, I would like to ask you about your assessment of the impact that this will have on tenants, many of whom are on lower incomes. Will any tenants receive a rebate for any costs incurred, and could you give some information on your discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions about mitigating any possible impacts on the benefits that those affected may be receiving? There will also be concerns as to whether all of the provisions of amendment 6 are within legislative competence. And so I'd be grateful for your clarity on this. Diolch.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The Minister to respond.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Diolch, Llywydd. Firstly, I want to stress that these are charges for services that have been delivered and for which tenants have continued to make payments. Social housing providers are unaware of any tenant who has refused to make a payment on the basis that it was unlawful under the 2019 Act. For the most part, the amendment is simply regularising that which has already taken place. Furthermore, it's important to remember that a large proportion of the payments that have been made will have been covered by housing benefit or universal credit. If we did not make these changes retrospective, any repayment of service charges that landlords may consequently be required to make may well result in the suspension of benefit payments whilst a claim is reassessed. At worst, it could lead to demand for benefit payments to be repaid and for individuals to be transferred from housing benefit to potentially less favourable arrangements under universal credit.
I also want to emphasise that there are a number of safeguards for tenants built into amendment 6. Currently, no-fault section 21 notices are invalid where prohibited payments have been made. The amendment requires that, even after the payments have been made lawful, any invalid section 21 notice previously issued would continue to be invalid. What is more, landlords who have levied a service charge during the period from 1 September 2019 to the coming into force of the amendment will be prohibited from issuing a section 21 notice for a further six months after the legislative change comes into force. This will allow the tenant time to understand the legal position and remedy any service charge arrears that may have occurred as a result of the retrospection. I also think it's worth pointing out that no tenant could be retrospectively charged for services for which no charge was levied during the period when this was prohibited.
The other point the Member made is very straightforward, Llywydd. We are satisfied that this is within the legislative competence of the Senedd and the Welsh Government. Diolch.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 5. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, two abstentions, one against. Amendment 5 is therefore agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 6, Julie James.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Is it being moved?
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved, Llywydd.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Thank you. Are there any objections to amendment 6? [Objection.] There are. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 6. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, two abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 6 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 18, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 18? [Objection.] There are. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 18. Open the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions, and none against. Therefore, amendment 18 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Laura Jones, amendment 55 in your name. Is it moved?
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Thank you. Any objections to amendment 55? [Objection.] There are. Open the vote on amendment 55. Close the vote. In favour nine, four abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 55 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 19, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 19? [Objection.] There are. We'll move to a vote on amendment 19. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, four abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 19 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 20, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Any objections to amendment 20? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 20. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions and one against. Amendment 20 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 56—
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
—in your name, Laura Jones. Is it being moved?
Laura Anne Jones (Conservative, South Wales East)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Thank you. Are there any objections to amendment 56?
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Can I see—? Yes, I can see an objection. [Objection.] Yes, thank you. It's objected and I call for a vote on amendment 56.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 56 is not agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 21—
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
—Julie James, is it being moved?
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 21? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 21. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions, four against. The amendment is therefore agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 22, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 22? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 22. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 22 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 23, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 23? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore open a vote on amendment 23. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 12 abstentions, one against. Therefore, amendment 23 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 24, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 24? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 24. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 12 abstentions and one against. Therefore, amendment 24 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 25, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 25? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 25. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 25 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 26, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 26? [Objection.] Yes, and we'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 26. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 26 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 27, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 27? [Objection.] There are. We'll move to a vote on amendment 27. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, nine abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 27 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 28, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Are there any objections to amendment 28? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 28. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, no abstentions and four against. Therefore, amendment 28 is agreed.
Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Amendment 29, Julie James.
Julie James (Labour, Swansea West)
Moved.